Erin Newcomer1, Guang Yang1, Bei Sun2, Hongbo Luo3, Duanwen Shen4, Samuel Achilefu4, Valerie Ratts5, Joan Riley5, John Yeh6, Quing Zhu1,3,4. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. 2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. 4. Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the laser safety of photoacoustic imaging. In photoacoustic imaging, a pulsed laser of several nanoseconds is used to illuminate biological tissue, and photoacoustic waves generated by optical absorption are used to form images of the tissue. Photoacoustic imaging is emerging in clinical applications; however, its potential use in reproductive medicine has yet to be reported. DESIGN: Assessment of photoacoustic laser safety before its adoption by clinical reproductive medicine. SETTING: Academic medical center. ANIMALS: Blastocyst-stage mouse embryos. INTERVENTIONS: Potential DNA damage of photoacoustic laser exposure on preimplantation mouse blastocyst stage embryos was examined. Different embryos groups were exposed to either 5- or 10-minute 15-Hz laser doses (typical clinical doses) and 1-minute 1-kHz laser dose (significantly higher dose), respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay was used to identify the rate of DNA damage in the laser-exposed blastocysts. RESULTS: The negative control blastocyst group (no laser exposure) had a mean of 10.7 TUNEL-positive nuclei. The 5- and 10-minute 15-Hz laser-exposed groups had a mean of 11.25 and 12.89 TUNEL-positive nuclei, respectively. The embryos exposed to the 1-kHz laser for 1 minute had an average mean of 12.0 TUNEL-positive nuclei. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that typical lasers and exposure times used for photoacoustic imaging do not induce increased cell death in mouse blastocysts.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the laser safety of photoacoustic imaging. In photoacoustic imaging, a pulsed laser of several nanoseconds is used to illuminate biological tissue, and photoacoustic waves generated by optical absorption are used to form images of the tissue. Photoacoustic imaging is emerging in clinical applications; however, its potential use in reproductive medicine has yet to be reported. DESIGN: Assessment of photoacoustic laser safety before its adoption by clinical reproductive medicine. SETTING: Academic medical center. ANIMALS: Blastocyst-stage mouse embryos. INTERVENTIONS: Potential DNA damage of photoacoustic laser exposure on preimplantation mouse blastocyst stage embryos was examined. Different embryos groups were exposed to either 5- or 10-minute 15-Hz laser doses (typical clinical doses) and 1-minute 1-kHz laser dose (significantly higher dose), respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay was used to identify the rate of DNA damage in the laser-exposed blastocysts. RESULTS: The negative control blastocyst group (no laser exposure) had a mean of 10.7 TUNEL-positive nuclei. The 5- and 10-minute 15-Hz laser-exposed groups had a mean of 11.25 and 12.89 TUNEL-positive nuclei, respectively. The embryos exposed to the 1-kHz laser for 1 minute had an average mean of 12.0 TUNEL-positive nuclei. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that typical lasers and exposure times used for photoacoustic imaging do not induce increased cell death in mouse blastocysts.
Authors: Vikram S Dogra; Bhargava K Chinni; Keerthi S Valluru; Jacob Moalem; Ellen J Giampoli; Katie Evans; Navalgund A Rao Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Erin I Neuschler; Reni Butler; Catherine A Young; Lora D Barke; Margaret L Bertrand; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Stamatia Destounis; Pamela Donlan; Stephen R Grobmyer; Janine Katzen; Kenneth A Kist; Philip T Lavin; Erini V Makariou; Tchaiko M Parris; Kathy J Schilling; F Lee Tucker; Basak E Dogan Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sreyankar Nandy; Atahar Mostafa; Ian S Hagemann; Matthew A Powell; Eghbal Amidi; Kathryn Robinson; David G Mutch; Cary Siegel; Quing Zhu Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Terence T W Wong; Ruiying Zhang; Pengfei Hai; Chi Zhang; Miguel A Pleitez; Rebecca L Aft; Deborah V Novack; Lihong V Wang Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 14.136
Authors: Li Lin; Peng Hu; Junhui Shi; Catherine M Appleton; Konstantin Maslov; Lei Li; Ruiying Zhang; Lihong V Wang Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 14.919